update to the feature synopsis document

there is an update in the usual place
it reflects a few changes:
- addressing the header discussion on today's telecon (and the email
it states all 3 levels of owl include the header information and
it abstracts the header section and points to the reference document.

- it points to the semantics document for some information concerning
restrictions such as transitive properties being declared functional.

 - it also points to the semantics document for a discussion of owl dl
vs. owl full (although i did not what peter mentioned at the end of
today's telecon - the writeup of his nice email message this morning
about his view of the distinction between owl dl and owl full.  thus, a
reference better than "see the semantics document" is needed.
 i can put in the paragraphs that jim and jim for guus volunteered to
generate as well but they are not there now.

 - it is waiting to point to a section of the req doc on the issue
jeremy raised on rdf instance data vs. owl instance data.

- in response to a request from herman ter horst and a request a while
ago from peter,
i broke out allValuesFrom and someValuesFrom into a section called
Property Type Restriction (new section 3.4 and the old 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6
are appropriately incremented).

- it addresses herman ter horst's email suggestions other than deleting
the references to daml+oil.  we had a number of requests after other
publications to include this kind of reference.  i see his point and if
we take the suggestion of a roadmap document, this might include the
information.  I do not want to delete it now and loose it.

i did not get to do an update reflecting the ontoweb comments except as
they were
covered in the action items, items above and the other discussion and
this does not include updates from frank.

for compliance with w3c requests of inclusion of the document, i am
attaching it here to meet the jan 2 deadline.


Deborah McGuinness wrote:

> > section 3.6 OWL Lite Header Information is out of date.  My
> > suggestion is we either drop the details from that section (simply
> > say there exists various kinds of header information, summarize and
> > point at Ref) or else extend it to include backwardCompatible and
> > like.
> >
> > The extralogical features for deprecation are not mention in this
> > document - again, either mention and point to Ref, or have a real
> > description (these could be folded into the above)
> i had pointed out in my message to jeremy what needs a decision.
> i favor abstraction and pointing to ref but we do need to decide if
all of the
> header info is in owl lite.  my default is yes.

 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)
801 705 0941

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 22:40:37 UTC